Is Violence Necessary?

Frantz Fanon argues that in every situation dealing with decolonization that violence is necessary in order for the natives to succeed over the settlers. I will discuss that violence is not necessary, and there are other means in dealing with the issue of decolonization. Using Mahatma Gandhi s essay entitled On Satyagraha you will be able to see that there are other alternatives to violent activity.

Let us first take Fanon s view of violence is necessary. Fanon begins by saying that decolonization is always a violent phenomenon. He is saying to begin with that it is always violent, that there is no other way in all cases there is violence. He also says that the native is ready for violence at all times. This is due to the amount of oppression that the natives have to deal with. It seems that Fanon is saying that something such as colonization that started with violence must also end with Violence with the process of decolonization. He uses such examples as the African countries Angola and Algeria. In each case showing that each country at the time was in fact using violent means to try to decolorize. As he says Colonialism does not simply state the existence of tribes; it also reinforces it and separates them. (pg.461). The quote shows that in fact that the settlers intention is to separate the natives. This leads to the abolishment of regionalism and tribalism by the natives. This destruction is the unifying of the native people, which will lead in an uprising of violence.

After presenting Fanon s view we must also look at another source: Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was is fact one of those natives that in his time was living in a British controlled India. He as well as many other Indians wanted to use the process of decolonization, but not the violent way that Fanon claims but in a non-violent way. His mode of resistance would be passive. He used the method of Satyagraha. Satyagraha is not physical force. A satyagrahi does not inflict pain on the adversary; he does not seek destruction. A satyagrahi never resorts to firearms. In the use of Satyagraha, there is no ill-will whatever. (pg.301). This shows that there is a non-violent method and that in fact native people are willing to use it against their oppressors. He continues by saying that India cannot uprise against Britain with use of force or firearms. The hundreds of millions on India can never carry arms. They have made the religion of non-violence their own. (pg.302). We can see that these natives are committed to a path of non-violence and will use no violent force towards the colonists. Gandhi concludes his essay with a strong statement: The attainment of freedom, whether for a man, a nation, or the world, must be in exact proportion to the attainment of non-violence by each. Let those, therefore, who believe in non-violence as the only method of achieving real freedom, keep the lamp burning bright in the midst of the present impenetrable gloom. The truth of a few will count. The untruth of millions will vanish even like chaff before a whiff of wind. (pg.305).

After considering both views I am in total agreement with Gandhi s teachings. There are other alternatives in this world other than resorting to violence. I do agree with Fanon that it may seem that decolonizaton may be violent and may lead to violence in that respect, but it is not always violent in every situation as we can see with Gandhi. Being oppressed is a horrible thing to endure and in our state of time today there is still oppression. As a active member of Amnesty International I have read many stories of oppression. I am just glad I have not had to endure the hardships Gandhi and many others have had to endure. In answering the question I began with. Is violence necessary? I have to say absolutely not.

In conclusion after showing Fanon's view about violence is necessary and showing the oppositional view of Gandhi's method of non-violence Satyagraha. I have shown that violence is not necessary and that violence doesn't always happen in the effect of decolonization.